Prince Chinembiri and Others v Chance Ncube and Others

Six plaintiffs, who were farmers in the Bindura area, assisted the first and second defendants (employees of ZETDC, the third defendant) in erecting electricity poles at Chiwaridzo Farm in Bindura. During the repair work, the second defendant, who was the controller and had issued a work permit, switched on a 33KV line while the plaintiffs were holding naked wires, resulting in severe electrocution of all six plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sustained varying degrees of electrical burns and injuries: Prince Chinembiri (60% disability - left forearm amputated); Paradzai Mupandenyama (90% disability - right forearm amputated, left hand contracture); Alexio Tembo (75% disability - right index finger amputated, loss of right hand function); Kudakwashe Pfunde (40% disability - contracture and stiffness of left shoulder); Clemence Shamu (18% disability - deep electrical burns); and Orchard Kanjado (14% disability - deep burns on hands and lower limbs). The defendants accepted liability during the Pre-Trial Conference, and the matter proceeded to trial only for assessment of damages. The defendants were in default at the hearing.

• What is the appropriate quantum of damages for pain and suffering arising from electrocution injuries?
• What is the appropriate quantum of damages for permanent disfigurement and loss of amenities of life resulting from amputation and severe burns?
• What is the appropriate quantum of damages for loss of earnings and profit where the injured party operates businesses?
• What principles should guide courts in assessing general damages for personal injuries in Zimbabwean law?

Judgment entered for all six plaintiffs with the following awards: (1) First plaintiff: $6,000 for pain and suffering; $8,000 for permanent disfigurement and loss of amenities; (2) Second plaintiff: $6,000 for pain and suffering; $10,000 for permanent disfigurement and loss of amenities; $10,000 for loss of profit and earnings; (3) Third plaintiff: $6,000 for pain and suffering; $9,000 for permanent disfigurement and loss of amenities; (4) Fourth plaintiff: $6,000 for pain and suffering; $7,000 for permanent disfigurement and loss of amenities; (5) Fifth plaintiff: $5,000 for pain and suffering; $3,000 for permanent disfigurement and loss of amenities; (6) Sixth plaintiff: $4,000 for pain and suffering; $2,000 for permanent disfigurement and loss of amenities. All plaintiffs awarded costs of suit. Interest payable at the prescribed rate from date of judgment to date of final payment for all six plaintiffs.

In assessing general damages for personal injury in Zimbabwe: (1) Awards must be compensatory, not punitive, designed to place the injured party as far as possible in the position they would have occupied but for the wrongful act; (2) The quantum of compensation for pain and suffering can only be determined by broad general considerations as no scales exist to measure such loss; (3) Courts must consider the fall in the value of money in terms of purchasing power but without strict mathematical adherence that may lead to unreasonable results; (4) No regard is to be had to the subjective value of money to the injured person; (5) Awards must reflect the state of economic development and current economic conditions of the country and should tend towards conservatism; (6) In assessing loss of amenities, courts must consider the age and sex of the injured person, the nature of disfigurement, and its influence on the plaintiff's personal and professional life, including the diminution in activities the person can participate in; (7) Special damages claims for consequential losses such as business losses due to neglect during hospitalization are too remote to be recoverable; (8) Where a plaintiff retains mental faculties despite physical disability, their residual earning capacity through delegation and management must be considered in assessing loss of earnings.

The court observed that translating personal injuries into money is equating the incommensurable, as money cannot replace a physical frame that has been permanently injured, making the task of assessing damages for personal injury one of the most perplexing a court has to discharge. The court noted that the concept of loss of amenities of life has been aptly defined as 'a diminution in the full pleasure of living' and that the list of non-pecuniary misfortunes for which compensation may be awarded (including pain, shock, discomfort, mental suffering, disfigurement, loss of amenities, disability, and loss of expectation of life) is not a closed one. The court commented that reference to awards made by English and South African courts may be an inappropriate guide since conditions in those jurisdictions, both political and economic, are so different from Zimbabwe. The court also observed that no two individuals can experience the same level of pain and suffering, hence the difficulty in relying on past cases except as general guidelines. Where there is insufficient evidence on exact figures for loss of earnings claims, the court is still enjoined to make an award if satisfied that the plaintiff has suffered such loss, even where the court has to 'pluck a figure out of the air'.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence as it comprehensively applies and reaffirms the principles for assessing general damages in personal injury cases established in Minister of Defence & Anor v Jackson. It provides guidance on the quantum of damages appropriate for severe electrocution injuries, amputations, and permanent disfigurement in the context of Zimbabwe's dollarized economy. The judgment demonstrates judicial restraint in awarding damages, emphasizing that awards should be compensatory rather than punitive, and should reflect the economic conditions of the country while tending towards conservatism. It also clarifies the remoteness principle in relation to special damages claims for consequential business losses. The case serves as a useful precedent for assessing damages in workplace injury cases involving electrocution and amputation, particularly where liability has been admitted and only quantum is in dispute.